[_ Old Earth _] Big band theory/evolution?

[jasoncran]

Of course it's been posted before, but as you now see - that does not stop us from talking about it again, as if it has NEVER come up before!

I don't see evolution as a very believable theory. I just don't see a creature, over time, developing new attributes.

For example:
What good is a half-evolved set of wings? How does the creature survive with the handicap of a partly-evolved set of wings without the benefit of a fully-developed set of wings?

As to the "Big Bang Theory" - I have come to totally believe in it. It sounds to me like a scientific interpretation of early Genesis.

How? planet earth just so happens to be in position and has the right tilt for life?

not to mention the fact that energy must come from somewhere and dissipate.in a nut shell its planet evolution. plausible but i dont buy it.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Jason,

Im too tired tongiht, but what I was getting at is that "The Big Bang" theory reads like early Gensis. I have read diatribes from secular scientists who even see that - one actually dismissed the theory because it sounds so much like Genesis.

I came here to READ tonight, just too tired to type. I might check back in tomorrow night and be more talkative.

 

[Deavonreye]

Are there steps that are always taken? Has science proven abiogenesis? Has science proven how the Big Bang occurred and why? Has science proven how the natural laws came to be? What are the steps involved in these processes? What about the backwards steps? How could there even be backwards steps in these processes? It was a one shot deal and it had to be absolutely perfect. This is where science ceases to be science and enters the realm of metaphysics, where it utterly fails.

And again, nothing is "popping into existence." Christianity posits that there is an intelligent agent who has created everything. This is far different from things just popping into existence. And once again, I must say that that is what your position states, not mine. You cannot even begin to talk of anything existing.

I'm sorry. I thought you believed in the literal 6 day Genesis account.

Regardless, it matters not if I [or science] don't know [currently] how the "big bang" [which is more inflation than "bang"] or why physical matter interacts the way it does. NOT knowing should never mean that there must have been something supernatural that took place.

I realize that we won't agree on this point.

 

[Deavonreye]

For example:
What good is a half-evolved set of wings? How does the creature survive with the handicap of a partly-evolved set of wings without the benefit of a fully-developed set of wings?

Just a thought. Early "wings" may have been for warmth or even for attracting a mate. The more flashy, . . . and perhaps big, the more likely it would attract a female. . . or male. Who knows. Just a thought.

 

[jasoncran]

Jason,

Im too tired tongiht, but what I was getting at is that "The Big Bang" theory reads like early Gensis. I have read diatribes from secular scientists who even see that - one actually dismissed the theory because it sounds so much like Genesis.

I came here to READ tonight, just too tired to type. I might check back in tomorrow night and be more talkative.

i am familiar with that. i remember hearing that

 

[Free]

I'm sorry. I thought you believed in the literal 6 day Genesis account.

Regardless, it matters not if I [or science] don't know [currently] how the "big bang" [which is more inflation than "bang"] or why physical matter interacts the way it does. NOT knowing should never mean that there must have been something supernatural that took place.

I realize that we won't agree on this point.

Which brings me to my point: What explanation at this point in time has the best explanatory power for how everything exists and why it exists? Why argue to the future, which really is no argument at all, and think that that is satisfactory or somehow superior to an intelligent agent?

 

[rzr]

Mine quoting and appeals to authority do not make a valid argument. And I already stated that "divine creation" isn't a possibility. . . a VIABLE possibility. Even if there were the smallests of possibilities, it would be irrelevant because no one religion could make the claim that it was "their god" who did it.

Jason, I don't know that answer. I can only speculate. If so, I would speculate that, . . . yes, the potential always existed in some form, . . . but not being a theoretical physicist, your guess [outside of a supernatural "instantaneous occurance"] is as good as mine.

Why are you so head-strong in denying even the "possibility" of divine creation? Its only a possibility, and for you to say NOT possible sounds kind of closed minded to me. My life has been dedicated to science and the more that I learned from science, the more I couldn't escape the idea of a creator. Not trying to appeal to authority but I greatly understand how Einstein, Newton, Darwin came to conclusions about the "possibility" of a creator. Science is all about inductive reasoning; hypothesis become theories, theories become facts, and facts become laws. Oops, quantum mechanics comes a long and some of Newtons "Laws" fall apart . Science isn't absolute but for the way it has taught me to think, the needle points to the direction of a creator. Big bang? sure, why not? God? sure, why not? Big bang + God? sure why not? All In 7 days? Now thats another story.

 

[Deavonreye]

Which brings me to my point: What explanation at this point in time has the best explanatory power for how everything exists and why it exists? Why argue to the future, which really is no argument at all, and think that that is satisfactory or somehow superior to an intelligent agent?

Why NOT "argue to the future"? What isn't understood by man, at one point in history, was discovered later. Countless mechanisms can be included here. It is useless to speculate until a test can be performed [when that test may be in the future].

 

[Deavonreye]

Why are you so head-strong in denying even the "possibility" of divine creation? Its only a possibility, and for you to say NOT possible sounds kind of closed minded to me. My life has been dedicated to science and the more that I learned from science, the more I couldn't escape the idea of a creator. Not trying to appeal to authority but I greatly understand how Einstein, Newton, Darwin came to conclusions about the "possibility" of a creator. Science is all about inductive reasoning; hypothesis become theories, theories become facts, and facts become laws. Oops, quantum mechanics comes a long and some of Newtons "Laws" fall apart . Science isn't absolute but for the way it has taught me to think, the needle points to the direction of a creator. Big bang? sure, why not? God? sure, why not? Big bang + God? sure why not? All In 7 days? Now thats another story.

Newton was also an alchemist. Should we be considering that as truth, too? Sure, there are very smart people who may have thought about such possibilities as a "supernatural agent". However, they are not all knowing BECAUSE of their intelligence. Even the very smartest person the world has ever known is STILL speaking under speculation on this topic, when it comes to "the possibility of a supernatural agent".

The majority of scientists see cosmology/evolution/life on a completely naturalistic basis. Just because the answer isn't currently known, there is no need to throw "magic" into the mix. I am agnostic. I do not completely deny the possibility of something out there that is beyond our state. But as I see it, . . . there is enough evidence that shows a NON "supernatural agent" in how that eventual life interacted and evolved [and with the distances of light traveling from the distance galaxies] over billions of years to state the following: Even IF a "supernatural agent" started the process, . . . it no longer was needed/active after that point, billions of years ago, . . . its evidence being non-existant.

I'm not close minded, but I must be realistic over what has no evidence, especially when man has been completely wrong when giving a "supernatural cause" for what was later discovered to HAVE a naturalistic explaination.

 

[Pizzaguy]

...when man has been completely wrong when giving a "supernatural cause" for what was later discovered to HAVE a naturalistic explanation.

For those wondering what Deavon is speaking of, here is a partial list:

1) the 10,000 year old earth.
2) the earth being at the center of the solar system (and even universe).
3) the universe being small, not much bigger than our solar system, if even THAT big!
4) illnesses being caused by demons or "bad spirits".
5) following the oddball "science" of Aristotle (boy, did HE get, well, about everything wrong about science)

The church has been SO wrong about SO much - and while I admire faith, to cling to obviously wrong beliefs in the face of hard evidence, just hurt the church even more.

 

[rzr]

Someone posted this video on this forum and it kinda touches on some basic philosophies that people have. But I think like this vid,in the sense that there is just as much evidence for a god as there is evidence of naturalism as far as creation is concerened . My faith does not reside in the church, it spawns from my own personal experiences and observations. Too bad people can't see both sides of the coin -Science / God.
YouTube - Evidence for God? What's that on your head...

 

[Pizzaguy]

My faith does not reside in the church, it spawns from my own personal experiences and observations.

SAME HERE!

I love my church and church family - but I get my faith from my life experiences and experience with God Himself! Sure, I have learned a lot sitting in church or Sunday School - but I have heard a lot spoken that I either disagree with OR suspect of being ..... suspect.

 

[Free]

Why NOT "argue to the future"? What isn't understood by man, at one point in history, was discovered later. Countless mechanisms can be included here. It is useless to speculate until a test can be performed [when that test may be in the future].

I thought science was based on evidence? Arguing to the future is not very scientific. Why not argue based on what we know now? Isn't that what science is about?

Besides, arguing to the future is really an empty argument. We could argue for absolutely anything, even the most absurd things, and that would leave us nowhere.

For those wondering what Deavon is speaking of, here is a partial list:

1) the 10,000 year old earth.
2) the earth being at the center of the solar system (and even universe).
3) the universe being small, not much bigger than our solar system, if even THAT big!
4) illnesses being caused by demons or "bad spirits".
5) following the oddball "science" of Aristotle (boy, did HE get, well, about everything wrong about science)

The church has been SO wrong about SO much - and while I admire faith, to cling to obviously wrong beliefs in the face of hard evidence, just hurt the church even more.

Are you saying you agree with Deavonreye, if even she would agree with your list, that such things were wrong for the Church to believe? If that is the case, points 2 and 4 are very misleading.

 

[Deavonreye]

I thought science was based on evidence? Arguing to the future is not very scientific. Why not argue based on what we know now? Isn't that what science is about?

Besides, arguing to the future is really an empty argument. We could argue for absolutely anything, even the most absurd things, and that would leave us nowhere.

What I'm trying to say is that, when man is left with [currently] unanswerable questions, we shouldn't decide that one way had to have been the cause. I've heard many state that "the supernatural is the ONLY way it could have happened". . . . . . . . . At one point in man's past, it was "only the power of Zeus throwing lightning bolts" as to why they happen. In the future, I see this happening when those future scientists and laypeople read accounts in their mythology class about how people believed that a specific god could have only been the cause of the beginnings of life.

My point is, it serves no purpose to assume the supernatural when ALL other mechanisms have had a naturalistic cause. There is no reason to suspect otherwise [about the beginnings of origins, even if there was a "beginning of life"...which could very well be found to be oxymoronic in the future].

 

[Pizzaguy]

Are you saying you agree with Deavonreye, if even she would agree with your list, that such things were wrong for the Church to believe? If that is the case, points 2 and 4 are very misleading.

I'm not saying I agree, but I sure understand Deavon's point.

The five items I listed are examples of the error (scientific error) that the church has taught in the last few hundred years. Sometimes, error was taught due to a narrow-minded or ignorant view of the world - based on a literal and flawed interpretation of scripture.

And other times, error was taught almost intentionally "for the public good". And I actually defend the church here.

FOR EXAMPLE - Galileo got into a LOT of trouble for his bold proclamations about how wrong the church's view of the universe was. But the church had a good reason - fact is, religion held the whole of society together, from the prince on down - and Galileo's attempt to "blow the roof off" what the church had been teaching was potentially harmful.

The church KNEW Galileo was right, but they wanted to tell the masses slowly. Galileo, for various reasons, didn't want to take time for that.

But back to the point - I have a few friends today who cling to scientifically absurd beliefs based on age-old bible teachings. This depresses me. And it hurts our witness to the world.

 

[Green Man]

Good afternoon[smile].
Pizzaguy, I read your comment within page 3 about partially developed birds wings. I believe that I can help you better understand how the process of evolution works, if you wish. Please ask me anything about it. I may not be the most knowledgeable of posters here but I always enjoy a good challenge to help keep me sharp. Or,...I could just...shut up about it[grin]. Your choice.

 

[RoadDebris]

Sorry if this has been posted before, or if this is in the wrong forum. What are your thoughts on the big bang theory and evolution? I'm not a full bottle on this stuff, but from what I can gather there is overwhelming evidence that the universe was created billions of years ago and not as stated in the bible. Should we perhaps be looking at the Biblical story of creation as a metaphor? A metaphor for what you ask? I'm not sure exactly...do you see what I'm trying to say here? I've got to head out right now but I'll post later...God bless everyone...

First of all, the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is, Young Earth theology notwithstanding. The Big Bang Theory is in line with the biblical account of creation: the universe is finite.

On Evolution, micro-evolution is an empirically proven fact (e.g. insects develop resistance to pesticides with exposure over time). Macro-evolution (i.e. Darwinism) is an irrational ideology based on circular and "just so" reasoning. The foundation of this belief is "survival of the fittest"; we know the organisms that survive are fittest because they survive. That's a premise supported by a premise instead of a conclusion (i.e. circular). Irrational ideologies are never valid.

 

[Green Man]

Good evening everyone[smile].
RoadDerbris, as Macro-evolution works through the processes of Micro-evolution, for you to rightly admit that Micro-evolution is a scientifically proven fact,...but then assert that Macro-evolution is not[you almost make it sound like a "philosophy"], shows that you have a misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works[as well as what evolutionary scientists teach/believe]. Perhaps you have an unrealistic understanding of what constitutes an example of Macro-evolution?
I respectfully extend to you the same offer I made to Pizzaguy within my former post[smile].

 

[jasoncran]

First of all, the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is, Young Earth theology notwithstanding. The Big Bang Theory is in line with the biblical account of creation: the universe is finite.

On Evolution, micro-evolution is an empirically proven fact (e.g. insects develop resistance to pesticides with exposure over time). Macro-evolution (i.e. Darwinism) is an irrational ideology based on circular and "just so" reasoning. The foundation of this belief is "survival of the fittest"; we know the organisms that survive are fittest because they survive. That's a premise supported by a premise instead of a conclusion (i.e. circular). Irrational ideologies are never valid.

how so with the bbt? it defies the idea of entropy.
our stars sytem once was a another star that was here and went supernova.